{"channel":"usconst","content":"There were a few issues with the c.2020 implementation of \"proxy voting\" for House members.\r\n\r\n Historically, for the Senate, there was a *courtesy* of \"giving live pair\", where a member opposed to a bill would decline to vote, to balance an absent member in support of the bill.\r\n\r\n none of the Founding Fathers ever owned a telephone, or even used a telegraph.\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\nThere are *issues* with the unlimited use of proxy voting.\r\n\r\nBut, a limited form would be more feasible.\r\n\r\nIn particular, it should be optimized for cases *other* than a closely-divided House where every vote counts.\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\nThe initial idea was that << remote >> voting would be permitted *only* from the State Capitol building of each state.\r\n\r\nThis has a few advantages:\r\n> a secure location\r\n> re-enforces the existence of a State Capitol\r\n> helps representatives to be close to their district\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\nBeyond that: there are distinctions between << procedural >> votes, and << substantive >> votes on legislation. ( even \"substantive\" is too broad a term; amendments are considered substantive, yet are meaningless unless-and-until the underlying bill passes)\r\n\r\nThe first set of votes are often \"contingent\"; the nature of later votes are dependent on them. The infamous << filibuster >> results from a failure to pass a procedural vote allowing for a substantive vote.\r\n\r\nYet: it is no great injustice if there are errors in procedure. Perhaps a minor injustice, but not a great one.\r\n\r\nThe impact of << substantive >> votes is much larger; and these are generally not contingent on each other. It is possible to construct convoluted scenarios where one is dependent on another.\r\n\r\n But, a certain amount of a \"multi-track\" parliamentary process would be necessary to benefit from this distinction. And, unfortunately, a control-bloc of both parties is committed to the ability to kill bills procedurally that would otherwise pass.","created_at":"2025-03-01T22:42:20.771723","id":268,"llm_annotations":{},"parent_id":null,"processed_content":"

There were a few issues with the c.2020 implementation of \"proxy voting\" for House members.\r

\n

\n \ud83d\udcad\n Historically, for the Senate, there was a courtesy of \"giving live pair\", where a member opposed to a bill would decline to vote, to balance an absent member in support of the bill.\r\n

\n

\n \ud83d\udd25\n none of the Founding Fathers ever owned a telephone, or even used a telegraph.\r\n

There are issues with the unlimited use of proxy voting.\r

\n

But, a limited form would be more feasible.\r

\n

In particular, it should be optimized for cases other than a closely-divided House where every vote counts.\r

The initial idea was that remote voting would be permitted only from the State Capitol building of each state.\r

\n

This has a few advantages:\r

\n
    \n
  • a secure location\r
    • \n
  • re-enforces the existence of a State Capitol\r
    • \n
  • helps representatives to be close to their district\r
    • \n

Beyond that: there are distinctions between procedural votes, and substantive votes on legislation. \n \ud83d\udca1\n ( even \"substantive\" is too broad a term; amendments are considered substantive, yet are meaningless unless-and-until the underlying bill passes)\n \r

\n

The first set of votes are often \"contingent\"; the nature of later votes are dependent on them. The infamous filibuster results from a failure to pass a procedural vote allowing for a substantive vote.\r

\n

Yet: it is no great injustice if there are errors in procedure. Perhaps a minor injustice, but not a great one.\r

\n

The impact of substantive votes is much larger; and these are generally not contingent on each other. It is possible to construct convoluted scenarios where one is dependent on another.\r

\n

\n \ud83d\udca1\n But, a certain amount of a \"multi-track\" parliamentary process would be necessary to benefit from this distinction. And, unfortunately, a control-bloc of both parties is committed to the ability to kill bills procedurally that would otherwise pass.\n

","quotes":[],"subject":"proxy voting"}